“What you see in Battlefield 3… that’s the beginning” says EA’s Patrick Soderlund, who admits that the Frostbite 2 engine was designed from the outset with the likes of the PS4 and Xbox 720 in mind.
(Battlefield 3, Next-Gen, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)
So now where are the people saying there is no way the PS4 and 720 could run Frostbite 2, cause you know just cause the company making the stuff says so doesn't make it true... Cause you know even though ubisoft said Watchdogs and SplinterCell Blacklist were going to be on PS3 and 360, for some reason there is a bunch of people saying no way, or Beyond and Last of Us are both PS3 games, but according to the internet peeps they have to be on PS4(sigh,lmao)
LOL I think I fall in that pool. WatchDogs just looks NextGen IMO. :D But that's a good thing see company's really squeeze everything out of these consoles. Kind of makes you appreciate what you have now...
OnTopic:. I just hope there using FB2 engine for NextGen while there building FB3...
Here... there is NO way frost bite 2 is going to run PS4 and XBOX 720 the way it was ment to run on the PC, just no way at all! It will be like running frost bite on PC in mid resolution, just look at the gpu's that are rumored to becoming out. If you had those mid range cards in a PC , you would be playing with mid to low res on.
Even though the specs of next gen systems are still up in the air, I'm assuming they'll reach the standard of a fairly powerful pc rig that you could build right now; however, with all the extra optimization resources put into console development, I really don't see how a console with that sort of power couldn't easily eclipse what will be available on the pc offerings.
Frontbite 2 is a scalable engine as it said the article. Hence also why they were able to gimp it to work on PS3 and 360. Devs can make almost anything run on the 360/PS3 but if its too intensive, contect and features must be chopped for it to work. PS4/720 shouldn't not be a problem.
good hopefully we will hear more in coming months about next gen tech
also people wii-u is not next gen by any means, its nintendo's way of catching up to this gen. even if you consider it next gen it will become last gen the day sony/m,s announce their next systems
i am buying a wii-u for N exclusives but we can bet on the fact 3rd party support will be stronger for ps4/xbox720 than wii-u
its a known fact that 3rd party games suffer on N consoles while 1st party games do great business. My biggest thing with wii-u is how stupid N has been with telling us info about wii-u their E3 was the worst of anyone in last 3-5 years. They are confusing their consumers more than anything else
also we know nothing about how well their online structure will be compared to xblive or psn
i am just glad i can play zelda and few others N exclusives in HD finally
Bad company 3 next gen! Im probably going to get hate for this, even though BF3 is awesome and its my go to multiplayer game, I loved bc2 more.. There was just something about its multiplayer, it just seemed so much more balanced and the maps felt right since they were made for 24 people anyway.. I cant explain what it is, I just enjoyed bc2 more.. So bring on BC3!
Why would anyone hate on you? Most of my friends prefer BFBC2 online as do I. BF3 is a fantastic game but I had more fun with BFBC2. I hope their next game is BFBC3.
prob becuase the first frostbite seemed more powerful, at least to me. you could literally demolish the entire battlefield and the graphics werent much worse. they looked arguably more realistic to me anyway.
could be just me but thats how i felt as well. BC2>BF3....from gameplay to map design to art, it was better in every way.
and i know they said "we took out full destruction for design purposes" but that was a bad choice if that really was the reason. it added so much more to the gameplay when the attackers not only had tickets but needed to get the obj before they had no cover and it was infinitely harder
I have to agree with you there. Whilst there are some gameplay choices I prefer in BF3 overall BF BC2 was more fun.
I think part of the problem is that on consoles the hardware just isnt powerful enough to realize what they wanted to do. Sometimes it feels like there arnt enough players in maps so when your taking bases its you vs 2-3 people so its not really a proper battle.
Unlike BF BC2 where the maps were smaller for the smaller player count and battles felt well scaled to the map size.
Im just glad I kept the game, the vietnam pack is brilliant and i still play it from time to time over bf3. Theyre almost 2 completely different experiences.
That's true. I didn't think about that until you wrote it. I have it for the PC but mainly play it on the consoles. I have both BFBC2 and BF3 on my rig. BF3 on a good rig is staggering. It's almost feels like a different game. So I do agree with EA when they say FB2 was built for next gen.
I hope they use all of their resources on multiplayer for their first next gen Battlefield. Make a multiplayer-only title (Battlefield 4, Bad Company 3, BF 2143) and sell it for $39.99. This would allow them to make a top tier game in a shorter amount of time at a very competitive price, while getting it out the door early in the next gen cycle. Maybe include a horde-type mode as well.
They could also sell a "premium" version for $60, which would include a steelbook case and all future DLC (3 expansions would be good).
I actually like the Bad Company series' storyline. So I think a good solution would be to have the main series, that is, Battlefield, would be multiplayer only like BF2, while the Bad Company series has mixture of great singleplayer and destructive multiplayer. Something like that, but I'm not a developer yet so what do I know? :P
Sounds good to me I think BF3 looks good on the 360 anyway but cant wait to see it running an a platform it has been created for it will be mind blowing.
Buddy, just look up BF3 MAXED PC and you'll see why this game is so amazing on PC.
I owned BFBC1 and BFBC2 on PS3....had to get BF3 on PC. It was just WAY too much of a leap to just get it on PS3. (or 360 if you will)
The game is simply amazing. Its clear it was made for PC and ported to everything else. Plus i'm pretty sure DICE has said that making it for the engine for next gen was a huge point for them. This is not the first time this was stated.
Many people can say what they want, but if FrostBite 2 is maxed on next gen consoles, theres no way anyone can say "oh i played BF3 on 360 or PS3 and it looked just as good" LMFAO! Its just not going to happen. You have to see and feel it to understand how well this game was made on PC.
Once the PS4 and 720 get a some maxed FrostBite 2 love,you'll know what i mean.
They say something different every time they talk about it, depending on what will get people talking. First it was for PC, then current consoles,and now for next Gen consoles. Shut up ea.
I was thinking the same thing... they pitched BF3 as being built for PC first and foremost... then we get stories about consoles being developed at the same time as the PC... now "it was next gen all along"... give it a rest EA.
I don't think NG consoles and PC is a contradiction!
- NG consoles WILL be a memory limited PCs - NG consoles will have more cores than most current PCs - NG consoles graphics will have lots of calculation power How much - depends on what graphics chip manufacturers are willing to sell for a reasonable price... (do you want to earn good on a few or earn a little on A LOT)
Where you playing the console version maybe? I have it for my PC and by far it's one of the best looking games this generation hands down. You just need a beefy PC to get the most out of it.
Lol BF3 is ugly!?! You're a troll! I play it maxed out on PC and it is absolutely sick! i5 3570k 8GB Sniper GSkill ram Gigabyte z77x Ud3h 120GB SSD GTX 670
How can Frostbite 2 be built for next-gen when it can barely run on this gen.If this is true then Battlefield 3 should have been perfect on 360/PS3.When in Jets or Helicopters you can see where the detail of the map haven't loaded yet.Even as an ground soldier on some maps details dont load onto the field until you are a couple of meters away.
How can Bad Company 2 have less texture popping in/out on an older version of the engine.And this is my personal problem with battlefield and thats the console player count.Its hard for me too believe that their engine can only perform 24 players.Until EA show me an shooter that really pushing "MY" console of choice,then they won't be getting my money next-gen.
Battlefield 3 on console can be the most boring shooter I have played at times.Longest I went without seeing any ground soldier was like 15 mins.And with 12v12 gameplay thats way too long.It will be real funny too me if EA can only manage 24 players shooters next-gen.
So many developers are turning too nothing more then graphic whores.As long their game look the best they could careless about the small detail.
If Frostbite 2 was designed with the greater horsepower of next gen machines in mind, wouldn't it stand to reason that it struggles with current, less powerful machines?
ok by that logic shouldn't they have made an engine that could run alot better on the PS3/360?Why create an engine that can't even run proper on the devices that most gamers own now?
Why make an next-gen engine but use it on current-gen consoles?It just seems odd to me that they would rather use an engine for console that haven't been released yet.
So basically why make an much powerful engine if it would struggle on less powerful machines how is that showing the ability of your engine.I'm sorry I just can't believe any of this.Maybe you can but i can't...
@Younglj01- yeah...of course it does to you. It has to do with the consoles not having the horse power to actually push a new engine. Just cause one makes a new engine doesn't mean its going to run on what you have. The idea of a new engine means something has improved no? But what can be improved on a system that is dated? They made the engine to be maxed on PC and used for NEXT GEN systems. The PS3 and 360 versions from what i can tell, still play fine and work. Of course not as well or as good looking as on the PC version, but DICE is not to blame for such a thing. They have NO CONTROL over what is in a console. They just have to deal with what there given.
Its like me yelling at a sculptor about not making me look buff enough in that sculpting and then leaving out that i didn't give him enough material to even sculpt me properly.
I'm sorry you can't "believe" that someone some how can't make a powerful engine on dated hardware. Buddy, if you owned a PC with a 4500gtx from 2002 and heard DICE made a new engine and said..
"So basically why make an much powerful engine if it would struggle on less powerful machines how is that showing the ability of your engine.I'm sorry I just can't believe any of this.Maybe you can but i can't..."
So...somehow they are suppose to make magic? What i said is NO DIFFERENT then what current gen systems are. They are dated hardware, one can't expect a damn developer to some how make some sort of magic to bypass all logic in terms of technology advancement to give you a game experience. Lets put it this way, your asking to be made buff, with not enough material to sculpt you in such a way. Please learn how tech works.
Wow you're trying really hard to troll this game aren't you?......
The engine barely as well as it should this gen because of the limitations of the current gen consoles. I'm sure with next gen, consoles will be able to achieve 64 player + count. If you spent 15 minutes trying to find players, which I highly doubt, you were either playing the game way wrong and you suck at it or you're blind. Bad company 2 has better graphics looking texture because its puts a lesser strain on the console, unlike the frostbite too.
Seriously its my fault because I cant find players when they are camping at their base waiting on Jets/Helicopters/Tanks too spawn?Their are games that run 32+ players are better and they don't seem too have any limitations.I'm just saying with an improved so-called next gen engine that you can't even too try too pull off more then 24 players.
"Bad company 2 has better graphics looking texture because its puts a lesser strain on the console, unlike the frostbite too." How can that statement be true when Bad Company 2 had alot more destructive environment/buildings then Battlefield 3.
Wouldn't an game with more destructive environment have alot more strain on an console then an game that have limited/selected destructive?
The lowered amount of destruction wasn't to lower strain. DICE even said that it was because in BC2, jerks would just tank snipe the whole match and destroy everything, making it impossible for defenders to defend/attackers to attack.
"Their (THERE) are games that run 32+ players are better and they don't seem too have any limitations.I'm just saying with an improved so-called next gen engine that you can't even too try too pull off more then 24 players."
BF3 was designed to be run on a PC. A high-end PC. I don't think it's surprising that they had to lower everything to run the game on what is known to be a 5+ year old PC in terms of power.
A sort of test run? To see if the engine would actually produce maybe?
The PC version looks spectacular. And I haven't had much problem with the console version apart from when I drive a jeep, that jeep is crap to drive. You hit something and the impact wont occur after atleast 5 or so seconds.
If they've said it was built for PS4/720 (Next gen) it obviously means it wont be as good this gen. It's like making a cake for tomorrow, but tasting it today just to see if it's good enough. It wont taste as nice because you still haven't added the glazing.
And if you dont see any ground soldiers for 15 mins, either you are camping or you're not doing as you are meant to. The longest I've gone without seeing any ground soldiers is a couple of minutes, and that is because I'm running towards the battles.
...sorry you got the console version. As a BF fan...its PC or nothing with a game like BF3.
You say "engine can only perform 24 players"....on console. 64 on PC. This is not whats wrong with the engine, its whats lacking from the PS3 and 360 to make a game like BF3 run those type of features. Yes MAG can run 256......did you see what MAG looked like? Have you seen DUST? Now i say this because you have to understand that something has to give.
You can't just have a game that looks as good at BF3 and ask for 64 MP and just ignore that neither console even has the ram to do such a thing. No engine will do that. No matter how hard you try to work on it. Its just technically impossible to have it look and play like that and STILL have 64 mp, theres a reason on why MAG looks like that.
Its funny cause if they where to make BF3 look like MAG JUST to get 64 players on there, you would complain on how ugly it looks, how much lag there is etc.
So...your comparing BFBC2's performance to BF3's?
Again...young grass hopper. If you had a 7800gtx and played BFBC2 on there and then got BF3, of course BF3 having a meatier new ENGINE would clearly make it run slower and less great then BFBC2.
But you would sit there with a straight face and say
"So many developers are turning too nothing more then graphic whores.As long their game look the best they could careless about the small detail"
Yes...because its there job to upgrade your rig to run at such a level of "detail"? Again. If we are saying you built a PC (Sony and MS building a console) and you just so happen to run across game like BF3 and said how much it sucks because of the lack of attention to "small detail" wouldn't that matter fall upon you "the PC owner with dated tech" or MS and Sony "the people making the consoles"?
If the PC version is running like butter and your's isn't. That is not DICE not paying attention...that matter of performance comes upon the PC owner or in this case the console manufacturer. A game can only run as good as teh system its running on.
Agreed. I'm sorry... but I really don't even acknowledge console versions of Battlefield. Call of Duty, sure. Battlefield, no. Sorry, it's a PC game through and through.
I'm starting to think that most of these companies really just want to sell their graphics engines not games. Because that's all they ever come out and brag on! 720 and PS4 might be comparible to high end PC's of today, might be... But I wouldn't expect anything more than that though.
EA are full of shit apparently BF3 was built from the ground up for PC first in mind.
Now they tell us that the engine it was built on was designed for consoles that dont even exist yet
EA learnt along time ago to tell the customer what they want to hear as they will believe every word of it because they want to. Months later a whole different story.....
I agree with EA on this statement, When I saw Battlefield 3 for the first time I fell in love with it, it was way above other FPS shooters and not only graphics wise, i was stunned to see how it was capable of handling such big maps with so much happening within the map. Can't for Battlefield 4.
You know what either of those words mean? And even if it can run DX11 and FB2, that doesn't mean anything. Maybe it can render an amazing little box on a platform, it doesn't mean it can render what is planned for Dice's next game, but hey, I guess you know more than the Devs do about their own engine.
You forget though that consoles run in extremely optimized environments, and Wii U will definitely be much more powerful than current gen consoles. That said, Frostbite 2 wasn't designed with next gen consoles in mind. It was designed with current gen high end PCs in mind.
update... also the comment about the box. Was that really necessary? I wish I could say I was surprised that so many "gamers" just like to bash Nintendo platforms. The Wii was the first time that Nintendo didn't manufacture a powerhouse. Well, that and the original NES.
frostbite 2.0 was made for the PC NOT PS4/NXBOX.. these new systems will have the power to run it in the way it was meant to be played.. the way PC players enjoyed it with 60fps & stunning visuals.. nx gen will have even better engines than this so who cares? wii u might MIGHT get a port of what we have already played which was frostbite 1.5
80°
60°
230°
50°
Ad 
50°
40°
40°
20°
20°
30°
OnTopic:. I just hope there using FB2 engine for NextGen while there building FB3...
It will be like running frost bite on PC in mid resolution, just look at the gpu's that are rumored to becoming out. If you had those mid range cards in a PC , you would be playing with mid to low res on.
There, I said it.
I disagree.
Even though the specs of next gen systems are still up in the air, I'm assuming they'll reach the standard of a fairly powerful pc rig that you could build right now; however, with all the extra optimization resources put into console development, I really don't see how a console with that sort of power couldn't easily eclipse what will be available on the pc offerings.
Devs can make almost anything run on the 360/PS3 but if its too intensive, contect and features must be chopped for it to work.
PS4/720 shouldn't not be a problem.
and a fast one at that
64 players on consoles next time around.
...Looking at you Caspian Border
also people wii-u is not next gen by any means, its nintendo's way of catching up to this gen. even if you consider it next gen it will become last gen the day sony/m,s announce their next systems
i am buying a wii-u for N exclusives but we can bet on the fact 3rd party support will be stronger for ps4/xbox720 than wii-u
its a known fact that 3rd party games suffer on N consoles while 1st party games do great business. My biggest thing with wii-u is how stupid N has been with telling us info about wii-u their E3 was the worst of anyone in last 3-5 years. They are confusing their consumers more than anything else
also we know nothing about how well their online structure will be compared to xblive or psn
i am just glad i can play zelda and few others N exclusives in HD finally
But looks and plays best on the superior platform, P.C..
Why wait for Next Gen when you can play it at 1600p* set to Ultra on 128 player servers TODAY!
* or use 3 1080p monitors and have peripheral view *
Flying a UAV strapped with C4 for example "kill those Snipers"
could be just me but thats how i felt as well. BC2>BF3....from gameplay to map design to art, it was better in every way.
and i know they said "we took out full destruction for design purposes" but that was a bad choice if that really was the reason. it added so much more to the gameplay when the attackers not only had tickets but needed to get the obj before they had no cover and it was infinitely harder
I also loved how everything in BFBC2 was destructible unlike BF3 where most of the map isn't so the game could have better graphics.
BF3 sacrificed a lot in the gameplay department so it could look better which is a mistake, even the aiming lag was due to AA apparently.
I think part of the problem is that on consoles the hardware just isnt powerful enough to realize what they wanted to do. Sometimes it feels like there arnt enough players in maps so when your taking bases its you vs 2-3 people so its not really a proper battle.
Unlike BF BC2 where the maps were smaller for the smaller player count and battles felt well scaled to the map size.
Im just glad I kept the game, the vietnam pack is brilliant and i still play it from time to time over bf3. Theyre almost 2 completely different experiences.
However while on my PC, Bf3 has to take the cake.
BC2 while enjoyable, was never that impressive on PC
They could also sell a "premium" version for $60, which would include a steelbook case and all future DLC (3 expansions would be good).
I owned BFBC1 and BFBC2 on PS3....had to get BF3 on PC. It was just WAY too much of a leap to just get it on PS3. (or 360 if you will)
The game is simply amazing. Its clear it was made for PC and ported to everything else. Plus i'm pretty sure DICE has said that making it for the engine for next gen was a huge point for them. This is not the first time this was stated.
Many people can say what they want, but if FrostBite 2 is maxed on next gen consoles, theres no way anyone can say "oh i played BF3 on 360 or PS3 and it looked just as good" LMFAO! Its just not going to happen. You have to see and feel it to understand how well this game was made on PC.
Once the PS4 and 720 get a some maxed FrostBite 2 love,you'll know what i mean.
- NG consoles WILL be a memory limited PCs
- NG consoles will have more cores than most current PCs
- NG consoles graphics will have lots of calculation power
How much - depends on what graphics chip manufacturers
are willing to sell for a reasonable price...
(do you want to earn good on a few or earn a little on A LOT)
I have it for my PC and by far it's one of the best looking games this generation hands down.
You just need a beefy PC to get the most out of it.
BF3 looks fantastic.
i5 3570k
8GB Sniper GSkill ram
Gigabyte z77x Ud3h
120GB SSD
GTX 670
How can Bad Company 2 have less texture popping in/out on an older version of the engine.And this is my personal problem with battlefield and thats the console player count.Its hard for me too believe that their engine can only perform 24 players.Until EA show me an shooter that really pushing "MY" console of choice,then they won't be getting my money next-gen.
Battlefield 3 on console can be the most boring shooter I have played at times.Longest I went without seeing any ground soldier was like 15 mins.And with 12v12 gameplay thats way too long.It will be real funny too me if EA can only manage 24 players shooters next-gen.
So many developers are turning too nothing more then graphic whores.As long their game look the best they could careless about the small detail.
Why make an next-gen engine but use it on current-gen consoles?It just seems odd to me that they would rather use an engine for console that haven't been released yet.
So basically why make an much powerful engine if it would struggle on less powerful machines how is that showing the ability of your engine.I'm sorry I just can't believe any of this.Maybe you can but i can't...
Its like me yelling at a sculptor about not making me look buff enough in that sculpting and then leaving out that i didn't give him enough material to even sculpt me properly.
I'm sorry you can't "believe" that someone some how can't make a powerful engine on dated hardware. Buddy, if you owned a PC with a 4500gtx from 2002 and heard DICE made a new engine and said..
"So basically why make an much powerful engine if it would struggle on less powerful machines how is that showing the ability of your engine.I'm sorry I just can't believe any of this.Maybe you can but i can't..."
So...somehow they are suppose to make magic? What i said is NO DIFFERENT then what current gen systems are. They are dated hardware, one can't expect a damn developer to some how make some sort of magic to bypass all logic in terms of technology advancement to give you a game experience. Lets put it this way, your asking to be made buff, with not enough material to sculpt you in such a way. Please learn how tech works.
The engine barely as well as it should this gen because of the limitations of the current gen consoles. I'm sure with next gen, consoles will be able to achieve 64 player + count. If you spent 15 minutes trying to find players, which I highly doubt, you were either playing the game way wrong and you suck at it or you're blind. Bad company 2 has better graphics looking texture because its puts a lesser strain on the console, unlike the frostbite too.
Just go troll elsewhere.
"Bad company 2 has better graphics looking texture because its puts a lesser strain on the console, unlike the frostbite too."
How can that statement be true when Bad Company 2 had alot more destructive environment/buildings then Battlefield 3.
Wouldn't an game with more destructive environment have alot more strain on an console then an game that have limited/selected destructive?
The lowered amount of destruction wasn't to lower strain. DICE even said that it was because in BC2, jerks would just tank snipe the whole match and destroy everything, making it impossible for defenders to defend/attackers to attack.
"Their (THERE) are games that run 32+ players are better and they don't seem too have any limitations.I'm just saying with an improved so-called next gen engine that you can't even too try too pull off more then 24 players."
BF3 was designed to be run on a PC. A high-end PC. I don't think it's surprising that they had to lower everything to run the game on what is known to be a 5+ year old PC in terms of power.
PC's are now capable of what we hope next gen consoles will be capable of. One engine compatible with PC's of today and consoles of tomorrow.
Seems plausible.
The PC version looks spectacular. And I haven't had much problem with the console version apart from when I drive a jeep, that jeep is crap to drive. You hit something and the impact wont occur after atleast 5 or so seconds.
If they've said it was built for PS4/720 (Next gen) it obviously means it wont be as good this gen. It's like making a cake for tomorrow, but tasting it today just to see if it's good enough. It wont taste as nice because you still haven't added the glazing.
And if you dont see any ground soldiers for 15 mins, either you are camping or you're not doing as you are meant to. The longest I've gone without seeing any ground soldiers is a couple of minutes, and that is because I'm running towards the battles.
The game brilliant, not great, but brilliant.
You say "engine can only perform 24 players"....on console. 64 on PC. This is not whats wrong with the engine, its whats lacking from the PS3 and 360 to make a game like BF3 run those type of features. Yes MAG can run 256......did you see what MAG looked like? Have you seen DUST? Now i say this because you have to understand that something has to give.
You can't just have a game that looks as good at BF3 and ask for 64 MP and just ignore that neither console even has the ram to do such a thing. No engine will do that. No matter how hard you try to work on it. Its just technically impossible to have it look and play like that and STILL have 64 mp, theres a reason on why MAG looks like that.
Its funny cause if they where to make BF3 look like MAG JUST to get 64 players on there, you would complain on how ugly it looks, how much lag there is etc.
So...your comparing BFBC2's performance to BF3's?
Again...young grass hopper. If you had a 7800gtx and played BFBC2 on there and then got BF3, of course BF3 having a meatier new ENGINE would clearly make it run slower and less great then BFBC2.
But you would sit there with a straight face and say
"So many developers are turning too nothing more then graphic whores.As long their game look the best they could careless about the small detail"
Yes...because its there job to upgrade your rig to run at such a level of "detail"? Again. If we are saying you built a PC (Sony and MS building a console) and you just so happen to run across game like BF3 and said how much it sucks because of the lack of attention to "small detail" wouldn't that matter fall upon you "the PC owner with dated tech" or MS and Sony "the people making the consoles"?
If the PC version is running like butter and your's isn't. That is not DICE not paying attention...that matter of performance comes upon the PC owner or in this case the console manufacturer. A game can only run as good as teh system its running on.
Remember that.
DOPPELGANGERS?!?!?
Now they tell us that the engine it was built on was designed for consoles that dont even exist yet
EA learnt along time ago to tell the customer what they want to hear as they will believe every word of it because they want to. Months later a whole different story.....
Mirrors Edge 2 is all i want from that engine right now.
as somebody already said: it would be enough if they would remake bf3 with 64 players for consoles
You know what either of those words mean? And even if it can run DX11 and FB2, that doesn't mean anything. Maybe it can render an amazing little box on a platform, it doesn't mean it can render what is planned for Dice's next game, but hey, I guess you know more than the Devs do about their own engine.
update... also the comment about the box. Was that really necessary? I wish I could say I was surprised that so many "gamers" just like to bash Nintendo platforms. The Wii was the first time that Nintendo didn't manufacture a powerhouse. Well, that and the original NES.
I actually thought this would be general knowledge to every gamer on the planet?
BFBC4!!
Just saying.
'Everybody' is your opinion